From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 13 01:06:30 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3D56U306108; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:06:30 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404130506.i3D56U306108@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #183 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:06:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 183 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ANALYSIS: A VoIP Migration Path For UNE-P Providers (VOIP News) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Crispin) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Bailey) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Levine) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Barry M) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Solomon) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Werner) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Gary B) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Carl Navarro) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Fred Goldstein) Re: CRTC Ruling (Aswath Rao) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (Nick Landsberg) Re: Wiring Old Intercoms (momo) Re: Spam Issues (Hank Karl) Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (AES) California Lawmaker Moves to Stop Google's GMail (Monty Solomon) Last Laugh! Kerry Served up With Waffles (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:47:03 -0400 Subject: ANALYSIS: A VoIP Migration Path For UNE-P Providers Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=91823 By: Joan Engebretson America's Network Weekly It's no secret that the quickly growing ranks of VoIP-over-broadband users are likely to see their ranks swell even further when the unbundled network element platform (UNE-P) is phased out. As that day looms, one group of competitive carriers is particularly well positioned to make that transition-namely, those carriers that have partnered with a DSL provider (usually Covad) to deliver a bundle of data and traditional voice services using a line splitting arrangement. "Over the next 12 to 24 months, we'll see a fundamental shift in the competitive carrier community in how voice is sold to homes and businesses," said David McMorrow, Covad executive vice president of marketing and sales. "After UNE-P, life looks like UNE loops delivering VOIP-over-broadband." Full story at: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=91823 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:06:35 -0700 Organization: University of Washington AOL has a way to go before it is a player in open standards. AOL's SMTP server is broken. It responds to the SMTP SASL "AUTH PLAIN" command with "334 Username:". AOL's IMAP server does not support TLS or SASL. It does seem to support SSL-IMAP on port 993. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Adam Bailey Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:31:40 -0500 Organization: paranoid net.fascists, anonymous In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly > Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can > remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get > replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] Prior to April 5, the only way to access your AOL mail was through the AOL client software, the AOL web site, or a very small list of approved third-party clients. Now AOL has IMAP and authenticated SMTP servers. For the first time, AOL members can use *any* email client with their email. Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP & S/MIME adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 2004 04:00:08 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to an item by Monty Solomon: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly > Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can > remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get > replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] What's new is that AOL users can now use any normal mail program like Eudora or (if you must) Outlook or Outlook Express to pick up and send AOL mail. Until now, you had to use either the feeble built-in AOL mail program, or one of AOL's own mail programs, Netscape or AOL Communicator. I find Netscape and AOL Communicator both to be very nice mail programs, so I don't see much reason to use Outlook or OE unless you have a lemming like need to be all Microsoft all the time. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:15:37 -0400 In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly > Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can > remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get > replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] This has nothing to do with sending mail to AOL customers, it's about AOL customers being able to use the AOL mail service with generic mail clients, rather than the AOL application. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** Please don't copy me on replies. *** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:22:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Another option before Open Mail Access was Claris Emailer on the Macintosh. Claris licensed the technology from AOL years ago. By the way, the normal mail program must support IMAP for receiving and authenticated SMTP for sending. Monty ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Hoeland this wasn't addressing the issue of "sending" mail to (and receiving replies from) an AOL-user, but rather that an AOL-user might want to use standard (non-AOL-specific) mail software to read and send email on AOL... ...software like Eudora, for example (www.eudora.com) quoting Monty Solomon : > Can I read and send AOL e-mail using other e-mail applications? ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Accessing the AOL Mail System using IMAP & Authenticated SMTP ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly Opens ...' as if it was something new? > For as long as I can remember, I have been able to send mail to x@aol.com > and get replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] /"\ ASCII... ._. |"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ | OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\| I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ | only quoted text in the first screen... ------------------------------ From: Gary Breuckman Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:41:18 -0500 Organization: Puma's Lair - catbox.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.macnightowl.com/news/2004/04/week2.htm#world > Can I read and send AOL e-mail using other e-mail applications? > http://help.channels.aol.com/article.adp?catId=1&sCId=416&sSCId=4093&articleId=217449 > Accessing the AOL Mail System using IMAP & Authenticated SMTP > An Unofficial Guide > http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/imap/ > Unofficial AOL Email FAQ > http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly Opens > ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can remember, I have > been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get replies to same. What am > I missing here? PAT] What has changed is apparently services for AOL members. Previously, the only way for them to read and write mail was through the AOL mail program, however many AOL subscribers are on DSL or cable and can get to the Internet without starting the AOL program, so AOL is allowing them to send and receive mail without logging in to AOL first. So now they can use programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora. Gary Breuckman ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:32:20 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:53:13 -0400, Ron Chapman wrote: > In article , joel@exc.com > (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: >> In light of the recent spate of postings from "VOIP News," I'm >> wondering of this is really a news service. So far, it looks more >> like a propaganda campaign designed to promote certain aspects of >> VoIP. > I agree. I've killfiled this author. That's the very first time in > 15 years that I've done ANYTHING like that in comp.dcom.telecom. I just sort by author and manually delete them. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Personally, I would take care about > putting anything in a killfile. Its a lot like having someone toss > out all your spam without even a cursory glance to see if there was > a mistake made in the judgment. PAT] Pat, What happened to comp.dcom.voice-over-ip? It seems to be the perfect place for people who have an interest in voip. Carl Navarro [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know what happened to it. If the newsgroup is now idle, I'd be glad to restart it, then all of the messages from Jack Decker's group on Yahoo could go in there. How about it, Usenet authorities, i.e. John Levine, David Lawrence and others? Is it sitting there idle? If so, and you flag it moderated and send it here to me I'll be glad to work with it at least temporarily. Please advise? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:26:21 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News" On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 05:08:21 -04 00 Jack "Mr. VoIP News" Decker wrote, >fg> So what's to complain about? But then John got a reply from a >> Mr. News, who so loves VoIP that he apparently took it as his first >> name: > Now Fred, that was a dumb comment to make. It's obvious that "VoIP > News" isn't the name of a person. No! You're kidding! > Pat has already explained how he mungess the message headers at my > request, again as an anti-spam measure. Of course headers are munged. But he was running your posts with no name, even though you were sometimes using the first person. A little attempt at humor may have gone whoosh? > But basically, here is where I'm coming from: I do not feel that under > any circumstances should VoIP be automatically assumed to be the same > as traditional wireline telephony. Indeed, in some respects it shares > more characteristics with cellular or wireless telephony than with > wireline telephony, but in reality it's something totally new. > Cellular telephony connects to the PSTN, yet it does not get hit with > exactly the same taxes and regulations that are imposed on wireline > phones. VoIP shouldn't either. Cellular gets hit with most of them. It's under interstate jurisdiction, so maybe those Michigan state-jurisdiction ones miss it, but it pays into USF, telecom excise, etc. It is regulated as telecom. > Now, I'm sorry for all you socialists out there, but I think it is > high time that the Universal Service Fund and similar corporate > subsidies went away. I feel they do far more harm than good, because > the biggest recipients are the medium-sized independents that operate > primarily in rural areas (I'm thinking here of the wireline side of > companies like CenturyTel and AllTel and some of their slightly > smaller brethren). And yet these are the areas where, very often, the > incumbent phone companies seem to be every bit as monopolistic and > hostile to competition as the old Bell System ever was. The "small" > phone companies have a higher profit ratio than the "baby Bells" these > days, and it's no wonder given the way they're rooting in the trough > of the USF. I'm half in agreement with you there. I think USF is out of control, and that companies like CenturyTel are ripping the rest of the country off with their steep subsidies. And of course they're incredibly anti-competitive. On the other hand, the network is more valuable because there is "universal service". I don't see why somebody in the woods who paid less for his house than the telephone company did for the wire to it should get local service for $12/month, while we in the high-cost-of-living cities pay $30/month. The FCC could fix that nowadays with more clever use of wireless technology, but the Wireless bureau and the Wireline bureau aren't exactly bending over backwards to help each other. http://www.ionary.com/ion-FCC-comments.html has a little tale on that topic. > Maybe Canada doesn't have any of these added taxes and fees on phone > service (if so, it would surprise me given the way they like to tax > everything else, such as the tax on blank CD's to support the Canadian > music industry), but still, I think that there should always be a > clear distinction made between wireline telephony and VoIP. The two > are not the same thing at all. Oh, Canada has a contribution system too. Phone service in the North, for instance, is very expensive to deliver. > Well, the VoIP companies can't just interface to the PSTN through some > kind of black wormhole that passes through the fourth dimension. They > actually have to use a licensed CLEC to make the connection to the > PSTN. And guess what, the CLEC does pay their share of the taxes and > originating and terminating charges, all of which gets passed onto the > VoIP company. Well, you are again half right. The CLEC does pay something. But the rate that one LEC pays another to deliver a call to its subscriber (i.e., what Focal pays Ameritech to deliver a call to an Ameritech subscriber in Detroit) is, under current rules, based on whether it is "local" or "access". The rate that CenturyTel and the rurals want for access (from LD carriers) is particularly high. The main issue is this: When a long distance call is delivered to a LEC subscriber, when should the LEC get the LD access rate or the local termination (often zero) rate? Under what seem to be the current rules, and this is not 100% clear since under Powell nothing is, if the caller in Massachusetts is using Vonage, then Focal in Detroit can deliver the call to Ameritech at the local rate, but if the caller in Massachusetts is using Comcast for local service, then AT&T (or whomever) has to deliver it at the (higher) access rate. (Access tariffs don't typically leave a piece for intermediaries like Focal. Comcast hands it off to AT&T or another LD carrier, who pays Ameritech.) Of course it's not obvious to Ameritech whether the call originated on Vonage or Comcast. This is very silly, of course. While it lasts, I am happy to help my clients take advantage of it -- as a consultant to competitive telecom providers, I am always looking for the regulatory angles. A carrier would be foolish to not make hay while the sun shines! They're getting screwed by enough dumb rules, so why can't they benefit by a dumb rule when they can? But I'm honest enough to say that something's silly when I think it's silly. The right answer, IMNSHO, is that the whole classification system should be done away with. Every carrier should have a price to deliver a call from interconnect point X to destination Y, regardless of the origin, ultimate destination, or the nature of the transport. VoIP just makes this even more obvious. >> [...] How much should Verizon, SBC, or Citizens charge when you call >> one of their subscribers from across the country? > Whatever it is, the CLEC or terminating long distance carrier has to > pay it. But personally, I'm hoping we all go back to "bill and keep." > You may have noticed it's the second-tier phone companies that are the > only ones fighting that tooth-and-nail, because they've been gouging > everybody on terminating charges for years. As noted above, current rules favor "phone to computer" VoIP over "phone to phone" anything. Bill and keep is one option, but I'd frankly rather see some cost-based (not fat-subsidy-based) termination charges. That should flow both ways. CLECs should get paid a little for delivering ISP-bound calls, and ILECs should get a little for delivering phone-bound calls. A call's a call. ... > You've lost me here. Maybe it's because I'm tired and it's late, but > I just don't see the connection between the "modem tax" thing and > VoIP. Of course, being called a "VoIP fanatic" probably doesn't help > my comprehension skills any. Check out the National Telephone Cooperative Association's Comments in the FCC's current VoIP docket (WC 04-36). This in particular: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516084257 Here's the relevant quote (from an organization of subsidy-supported rural telephone companies, in case it wasn't obvious): "The enhanced service provider (ESP) exemption for Internet service providers should be eliminated as the reasons leading to its creation have long since dematerialized." Who says the modem tax is dead and buried? It keeps rearing its ugly head. Fortunately, the NTCA is off in the lunatic fringe on this topic. > My point is that if some country sees that they can start raking in > the dough by allowing VoIP providers to set up shop there and make > connections to the PSTN, they may well do it. Maybe they charge their > own phone taxes and maybe they don't, but maybe they would forego the > phone taxes in the case of VoIP companies that set up shop in their > countries, particularly if local help were used and/or the proper > "payments" were made to the right officials. And there would not be > much the U.S. Government could do about it. No, because the charges in question are those levied by the terminating telephone companies, not the government -- there are few real "taxes", but a lot of phone company tariffs. International calls are now charged the interstate access rate. Well, unless they're VoIP, but again the issue is mainly over what the terminating telco can charge, lest they cut off service to the VoIP provider on grounds that they haven't paid the bill. ------------------------------ From: Aswath Rao Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:18:22 -0400 Subject: Re: CRTC Ruling Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Jack: I have a different interpretation of CRTC preliminary view. It is not clear to me why you feel that CRTC does not recognize VoIP to be a new type of communication. They have declared that VoIP is special if it does not use NANP resource and if they do not interface to PSTN. If VoIP providers already pay the taxes and fees, then the ruling is just a confirmation of what is currently taking place. In this respect it is a good thing, because we have clarity now. Regards, Aswath ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:58:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet John R. Covert wrote: > John Levine wrote: >> there's the little detail that my Vonage phone has a real phone >> number ... while a FWD phone has a fake phone number that only the >> 4000 FWD phones ... can call. > Well, not exactly. My FWD phone also has a WA state (area code 360) > number that any phone can call and also has a UK number (0870) which > any phone can call. True, it's not the FWD phone's true phone number, > but that's merely a small matter of programming; it could be. > /john > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Tell me this please, John Covert: Is > that FWD area 360 number to your personal FWD line or is it is a > gateway type thing, where you call, the gateway answers, then you > have to input your own FWD number? Either way, gateway or DID to > your phone, who would one talk to about getting the same thing, or > if it is a gateway type thing, are there other 'more local' gateways > one can use? If a gateway, can anyone use it who has FWD? Thanks > for your answers. PAT] In this day and age, what's a phone number? Seriously? In the case of mobile phone, they identify themselves to the local cell site with and IMSI (International Mobile Service Identifier ... although I'm not sure of the translation of the acronym). When you dial 555-333-4444 the network makes a database dip to see what the "real" ID of that number is (much like 800-number routing), and routes it to that IMSI, if mobile, or "real" number, if landline. We have so many levels of indirection in the routing that it is hard to fathom what's a real phone number and what isn't. I imagine that providers like FWD and Vonage do something like similar with numbers, IP addresses and whatnot. It keeps providers of large, fast databases (like me and the company I work for) in business. Note: Keeping these databases up to date is another a whole 'nother kettle of squirmy fish. "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: momo Subject: Re: Wiring Old Intercoms Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:24:02 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Rich wrote in message news:telecom23.163.6@telecom-digest.org: > I have a set of old Couch intercoms I want to install in our 1912 > house. I am able to get a little life out of them with a 12V battery, > but I had understood that to ring, I'd need AC power. But, I've found > that these ring on DC -- but I haven't been able to figure out how to > hook them up right. There appear to be four possible points to wire > the intercom, but I'm not sure what wires should go where. I've had > no luck locating any wiring diagrams or any discussion of these > intercoms, for that matter. Any suggestions would be appreciated! > Rich Sounds pretty cool. I lived in a house in Galveston TX that was built in the early 1800's so I suppose yours is just getting broken in 8-). It would help if you could photograph the units if they have no make/model numbers. Photos inside and out would be very helpful. Upload them to a personal site and post the link here. Maybe we can figure these out. Mo ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:26:33 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:18:06 GMT, SELLCOM Tech support wrote: > jmeissen@aracnet.com posted on that vast internet thingie: >> While you may be frustrated with the list maintainers, your complaint >> should be with the administrator of the site you're trying to email. >> It's their choice to use the list that's negatively impacting their >> email system. At the least you should be able to get them to whitelist >> you. If the site administration has left themselve unreachable email >> or phone then they are truly irresponsible. > The administrator of the site was quite cooperative and generous with > his time. The point is that many administrators just see "spam > blackhole lists" and apparently don't know how to evaluate the > quality. The admin had no idea what "FIVETEN" was. When I first set > up our servers I really had no clue about blackhole list quality (till > one went berserk and blocked our main supplier). Why don't you set up a website rating the black hole list quality? ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:17:24 -0700 I'd like to get free of the hassles of maintaining an old-fashioned fax machine. I can handle the occasional outgoing fax by connecting my laptop to my office voice line temporarily; being open to incoming faxes is more problematic. I'm told there are Internet services where anyone can send a fax from a standard fax machine to some special telephone number that's listed as my fax number, and the fax is then transmitted to me over the Internet as an email attachment or a temporary web page? Anyone had direct experience with any such service? (and some idea of the monthly or per fax cost?) Thanks much. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service and the cost is FREE. (You know your poor mouth moderator; would I have it any other way?) EFax gives you a number (*not* local unless you pay for that) and you get your incoming faxes as email. See the end of each issue of the Digest for the various free EFax numbers I have which point either here to the Digest mailbox or my personal mailbox. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:27:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail By Lisa Baertlein SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 (Reuters) - A California state senator on Monday said she was drafting legislation to block Google Inc.'s free e-mail service "Gmail" because it would place advertising in personal messages after searching them for key words. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41058028 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:08:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! Kerry Gets Served up With 'Waffles' By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY Internet pranskters have set their Web sites on Sen. John Kerry. Some jokers who don't like the Democratic presidential candidate are trying to make his campaign Web site, johnkerry.com, the first answer to a search of the word "waffles" on Google, the No. 1 Internet search engine. They've nearly succeeded on the No. 2 search engine, Yahoo. By Sunday, eight days after the prank began, johnkerry.com was listed second among 703,000 results of a Yahoo search of the word "waffles." At the No. 3 search engine, MSN Search, johnkerry.com was also the second Web page result of a search Sunday for "waffles." On Google, johnkerry.com was not in the top 1,000 of the 556,000 results of a search for "waffles." Authorities on search engines say the joke's quick impact on Yahoo and MSN, though, is a sign that the campaign is working and that Google will be affected soon. The high-tech twist on old-fashioned political chicanery follows an Internet prank last year that still tweaks President Bush. Anti-Bush practical jokers made Bush's official biography at whitehouse.gov. the first result of a Google search of the phrase "miserable failure." Equally clever Bush supporters came to his defense. They've made his biography the No. 1 result of a Google search for "great president." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-04-11-kerry-waffles_x.htm ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #183 ******************************